On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 16:44:31 -0500
Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> My version of this patch also cleaned up the following comment, which
> has been wrong since 2.5.70 or thereabouts...
oh, I didn't spot that.
I looked at the version in linux-next and saw that it was propagating
the error value back to the VFS as well. Or maybe that was done in a
separate patch, dunno. But while that's a good change, I felt that we
should separate it from this bugfix. I meant to mention it but I
forgot, sorry.
> This isn't urgent, so could you just queue this up for the next merge
> window in the -mm tree?
>
> - Ted
>
> ext3: Clean up outdated and incorrect comment for ext3_write_super()
>
> Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> diff --git a/fs/ext3/super.c b/fs/ext3/super.c
> index e5717a4..296c044 100644
> --- a/fs/ext3/super.c
> +++ b/fs/ext3/super.c
> @@ -2375,12 +2375,9 @@ int ext3_force_commit(struct super_block *sb)
> /*
> * Ext3 always journals updates to the superblock itself, so we don't
> * have to propagate any other updates to the superblock on disk at this
> - * point. Just start an async writeback to get the buffers on their way
> - * to the disk.
> - *
> - * This implicitly triggers the writebehind on sync().
> + * point. (We can probably nuke this function altogether, and remove
> + * any mention to sb->s_dirt in all of fs/ext3; eventual cleanup...)
> */
> -
> static void ext3_write_super (struct super_block * sb)
> {
> if (mutex_trylock(&sb->s_lock) != 0)
Sure.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
